You claim an increase in temperature. According to thermodynamics, this is only possible with additional energy. How do you account for the additional energy REQUIRED to increase the temperature?

.

Increases in heat trapping gases like carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, or near earth ozone act to trap long-wave radiation, or back radiation, leaving the earth's surface. That is, they more readily absorb and store radiative energy from the sun in the form of heat than air with lower concentrations of these gases do. I hope this answer your question, as I cannot put it more simply.

Btw_Increases in these heat trapping gases, or green-house gases, has been observed as well as projected to increase both air and ocean water temperatures (http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/system/files_force/downloads/low/NCA3_Full_Report_04_Energy_Supply_and_Use_LowRes.pdf?download=1).

JamesTankard wrote:Increases in heat trapping gases like carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, or near earth ozone act to trap long-wave radiation, or back radiation, leaving the earth's surface. That is, they more readily absorb and store radiative energy from the sun in the form of heat than air with lower concentrations of these gases do. I hope this answer your question, as I cannot put it more simply.

This is the Magick One Way Mirror Gas argument.

I invite you to consider the effect of raising the temperature of a parcel of air. What happens to it? That parcel rises, and cools as a result of the loss of pressure. The hotter the parcel, the faster it rises (why thunderstorms, tornadoes, and hurricanes are typically summer events). In other words, any cause of heating of air causes that air to dissipate that energy that much faster. This is in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Carbon dioxide has no remarkable properties to act as an insulator, or to reflect electromagnetic energy. Only about 1% of the carbon dioxide actually absorbs any energy from light. The molecule and the light must be oriented correctly to each other for absorption to occur. Otherwise, the light simply passes by without affecting the molecule at all.

Absorption results in thermal energy, which is simply dissipated into the overall temperature of the air. Since carbon dioxide is currently about 0.04% of the air, and only about 1% of THAT actually reacts to infrared light (about 0.004%), the thermal contribution to the atmosphere is basically...not much. What IS contributed is simply convected away like any heated air.

Carbon dioxide does not have a 'back radiation'. Absorbed energy is converted to thermal energy. It has no remarkable properties to hold heat better than any other gas. It has not remarkable properties as a thermal insulator.

This 'simple answer' is riddled with problems.

JamesTankard wrote:Btw_Increases in these heat trapping gases, or green-house gases, has been observed

Questionable. The instrumentation used to measure carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is not only limited to a very few sites, but the design of the instrument itself introduces all sorts of possible error.

The instrument in question makes use of infrared light of a specific frequency shining through a window in a tube with the sample gas flowing by. This is compared to known concentrations of carbon dioxide as determined by a mass spectrometer. Samples of these known concentrations are used to calibrate the instrument.

The problem is, simple water vapor also responds to these same frequencies of light. For the instrument to be truly accurate, the gas must contain zero humidity, which is impossible on a practical scale, particularly in a marine environment like Hawaii.

JamesTankard wrote:as well as projected to increase both air

Projections are nothing more than fortune telling. Science doesn't use chicken entrails in its work. The scientific method never 'projects' anything. Science is not capable even of prediction without the use of turning to mathematics, the only discipline that contains the power of prediction.

JamesTankard wrote:and ocean water temperatures

No mechanism for changing ocean water temperatures exist for carbon dioxide. Ocean water is warmed by light energy emanating from the sun. Carbon dioxide is not an energy source.

...deleted link to propaganda site...

Linking to another site does not imbue any argument with any kind of Holy Blessing. An argument must stand on its own, or fall on its own.

JamesTankard wrote: Increases in heat trapping gases like carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, or near earth ozone act to trap long-wave radiation, or back radiation, leaving the earth's surface.

You are violating physics. Any scientist (or any person for that matter)knowledgeable in thermodynamics will immediately recognize your egregious error.

1) For temperature to increase you must increase the amount of energy.2) Your description above of energy merely changing form does not amount to any additional energy. ...Ergo, your description above cannot increase average temperature. It's not physically possible.

...Ergo, you don't have a very good understanding of thermodynamics, do you?

JamesTankard wrote: That is, they more readily absorb and store radiative energy from the sun in the form of heat than air with lower concentrations of these gases do.

Unfortunately, you included the words "and store" which makes your statement false.

You don't understand Planck's Law, do you?

JamesTankard wrote: I hope this answer your question, as I cannot put it more simply.

Well, you made it clear that you aren't very in-tune with science, and that you are just preaching a WACKY earth religion. So, yes, you answered my question.

If you'd like a clearer understanding of why your WACKY earth religion runs counter to science, just let me know. Otherwise, if you don't make such a request I'll presume that your faith is more precious to you than any scientific understanding.

JamesTankard wrote:Btw_Increases in these heat trapping gases, or green-house gases, has been observed as well as projected to increase both air and ocean water temperatures

Are you saying that increases in temperature have been observed? Yes, I know. Are you aware that decreases in temperature have also been observed? You obviously haven't thought this through very well.

Your Global Warming earth religion isn't long for this world (I hope you appreciate the irony). It is dying a rapid death. But please, impose the faith on your impressionable children and make my children more competitive relatively.

Well, I take that back...don't teach it to your kids. Teach them science instead. We need smarter people; we already have enough morons.

.

Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin.- trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"!- Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

spot wrote:FFS this again, Its not worth responding to this shit, this forum is dead.

Yours is the appropriate response for a religious person who is faced with science that conclusively shows his faith to be false.

All religious posters who pretend to be "scientists" inevitably flee when science is presented. Of course, you try to blame those who present science as being the problem and you try to characterize the offending science as "shit."

When you and your ilk flee, you raise the intelligence quotient of the discussion...even when there is no discussion.

...or maybe you would like to explain why your "greenhouse effect" is real and not just some WACKY religious dogma of some ZANY earth cult.

[p.s. In choosing between science and your WACKY religion as to which one is "shit"...I think the choice is clear].

Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin.- trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"!- Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

I am not a big fan of the argument for anthropamorphic climate change and yes the terms climate / weather / change and the like are all questionable. I certainly have issues with the dire forcasts with regard to sea-level rise and the numerous others, but why is it that so many "scientists" do proport to believe in Global Warming / Climate Change as a concept. Most importantly why don't they see the connection to your often voiced opinion on the laws of thermodynamics and Plancks Law? Is there something that you have missed or perhaps don't understand?

MK001 wrote:I am not a big fan of the argument for anthropamorphic climate change and yes the terms climate / weather / change and the like are all questionable. I certainly have issues with the dire forcasts with regard to sea-level rise and the numerous others, but why is it that so many "scientists" do proport to believe in Global Warming / Climate Change as a concept. Most importantly why don't they see the connection to your often voiced opinion on the laws of thermodynamics and Plancks Law? Is there something that you have missed or perhaps don't understand?

Scientists are people. Like any group of people, they have different ways for looking at things. Like any group of people, they are motivated by different things. One of the biggest things that motivate people is the paycheck (i.e. food, shelter, comfort, etc).

Scientists also have different areas of expertise and different levels of training. It can hardly be argued, for example, that an expert in geology is not going to be particularly an electronics whiz.

The paycheck problem is the biggest.

In every university, there is an office you go to to try to get grant money. This office is operated by the government (since it's a government funded university). This grant money is obviously tied to the government agenda, whatever it is.

The government has found that it could increase it's own power by justifying a crisis such as global warming. It is therefore in the government's interest to guide grant money into anything that can support the global warming argument. This means the research funded by this money must come up with some kind of conclusion that supports this agenda.

In some cases, the scientist involved knows he is lying about the physics, but he has to eat too, and is basically forced to lie about it to get his grant money.

In others, the scientist has a political agenda of his own that happens to conform to the government, perhaps by believing the government propaganda. Often an observer rather than a scientist, such are often willing to manufacture data or build fake conclusions.

Still others have no say in the matter, since they are working under another scientist in a research project.

The big thing to remember is that there is no consensus in the world of scientific theory. It simply has no place there. No one owns science. Science is not about proving a theory correct at all. Science doesn't even have proofs of any kind. Neither does it have the power of prediction. The ability to predict lies with mathematics and formal logic, not science. Mathematics and formal logic is also the only source of proof that science can use.

Many scientists are relatively poor mathematicians. They are great at coming up with a theory and perhaps building some kind of instrumentation, but their mathematics skills aren't the same as one who specializes in the field. Mathematics has the power of prediction because it is a closed system. Science is not.

A good description of the philosophy that defines a solid scientific method can be found in Karl Popper's works. He shows why the old Aristotelian methods do not make a good scientific method.

MK001 wrote: I certainly have issues with the dire forcasts with regard to sea-level rise and the numerous others, but why is it that so many "scientists" do proport to believe in Global Warming / Climate Change as a concept.

What's more likely is that you hear/read that "scientists" all worship the "Climate" religion but somehow those "scientists" are conveniently never around to be cross examined.

Countless times warmizombies have used no other argument than the idea that the "Climate" deity must be causing "Global Warming" because they were told that an unspecified number of unnamed and completely absent scientists BELIEVE so.

Has anyone ever planted one of these "scientists" in front of you for cross-examination? With the vast number of apparent Global Warming believers, that should be a daily occurrence, yes? But I'm guessing that hasn't happened even one time. I actively SEEK these "scientists" so I can cross-examine their asses but I think even you now realize that they just don't exist. Sure, there are scientists who are religious, including many who worship the Global Warming faith, but they all run and hide the moment someone like myself brings on the science questions.

This issue is EASILY resolvable. Find ONE (of the undoubtedly countless) of the physics PhDs who are Climate grovelers and who will come to this website and tender various specific (and simply straightforward) physics questions without pouting and fleeing when s/he realizes the questions pertain to science and not WACKY dogma.

MK001 wrote:Most importantly why don't they see the connection to your often voiced opinion on the laws of thermodynamics and Plancks Law?

You tell me who "they" are. When was the last time you saw Global Warming scientist spank a non-worshiping physicist in a public, televised debate? What? There haven't been any such publicly televised physics debates? Would you care to guess why?

Let's start by asking you why you BELIEVE in all this Global Warming crap. What convinced you?

.

Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin.- trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"!- Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

According to thermodynamics, this is only possible with additional energy. How do you account for the additional energy REQUIRED to increase the temperature?

Do you even know the first thing about the theory of greenhouse gases?

The additional energy is from heat emitted from the Sun which, when reflected off the Earth's surface, causes radiated energy to be absorbed and then re-emitted back to the ground by greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere.

This was all described and confirmed in the late 1800s. Where have all of you been?

According to thermodynamics, this is only possible with additional energy. How do you account for the additional energy REQUIRED to increase the temperature?

Do you even know the first thing about the theory of greenhouse gases?

The additional energy is from heat emitted from the Sun which, when reflected off the Earth's surface, causes radiated energy to be absorbed and then re-emitted back to the ground by greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere.

This was all described and confirmed in the late 1800s. Where have all of you been?

Carbon dioxide has no magickal mirror property. Absorbed energy is converted to thermal energy (approx 0.0004% of atmospheric heating by carbon dioxide), dissipated into the rest of the atmosphere, then convected upwards like any other hot air.

Air above the surface is colder than the surface. You cannot heat the surface using colder air.

I also hope that, assuming it's accurate, you're not saying 0.0004% can't be a significant amount...

And, again, you're completely misunderstanding the whole idea behind greenhouse gas theory. It's not about "heat[ing] the surface using colder air", it's about heating the surface by trapping radiated energy from the Sun that would otherwise reflect off our planet's surface and return to space.

I also hope that, assuming it's accurate, you're not saying 0.0004% can't be a significant amount...

And, again, you're completely misunderstanding the whole idea behind greenhouse gas theory. It's not about "heat[ing] the surface using colder air", it's about heating the surface by trapping radiated energy from the Sun that would otherwise reflect off our planet's surface and return to space.

To trap energy as you describe a substance would have to be capable of decreasing entropy without the use of an energy source. This produces a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind.

This type of machine must necessarily continue to trap energy, getting hotter and hotter until the machine itself is catastrophically destroyed. If such a trap existed on Earth, the Earth wouldn't be here for us to have a discussion on it.

ANYTHING that warms the surface is a GREATER rate of energy to space than before. The surface would cool, not warm, until it again reached the average temperature of an object in space plus pressure effects.

Such a perpetual machine cannot exist according to the law of entropy.

Air heated by carbon dioxide cannot heat the surface. It is colder than the surface.

But Earth is not a closed system. Even the Earth and the Sun isn't a closed system. Heat from the Sun that enters the Earth's atmosphere doesn't all remain on Earth. Some of it leaves. In fact, most of it leaves.

If some of the energy that would leave gets absorbed by CO2 or other greenhouse gases, temperature rises. None of this violates the 2nd law.

But beyond that, if it did violate the second law, then it's the second law that's wrong. Remember, laws aren't absolute. They're observations. So, if we observe something that violates the law, the law is what's wrong, not the observation. Hence, the observation that increased CO2 levels (and other greenhouse gases) results in an increase in temperature supersedes the law of thermodynamics if they conflict.

The only natural system that thermodynamic laws apply to, being the only one naturally closed to external energy sources, is the universe as a whole. Lab conditions that tightly control the input of energy are pretty much the only other place where thermodynamic laws are observed and applied, though only in a relatively lose manner. They also could potentially be used successfully on, for example, rogue planets, though energy input in such cases may still be too high for the laws to be observed within reasonable error.
Edited on 20-07-2016 21:46

Leafsdude wrote:But Earth is not a closed system. Even the Earth and the Sun isn't a closed system. Heat from the Sun that enters the Earth's atmosphere doesn't all remain on Earth. Some of it leaves. In fact, most of it leaves.

ALL of it leaves. What goes in MUST come out. That's the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Leafsdude wrote:If some of the energy that would leave gets absorbed by CO2 or other greenhouse gases, temperature rises. None of this violates the 2nd law.

Yes it does. It also is not an accurate representation of what happens when CO2 absorbs electromagnetic energy.

Leafsdude wrote:But beyond that, if it did violate the second law, then it's the second law that's wrong.

An interesting claim. What is your mechanism for change?

Leafsdude wrote:Remember, laws aren't absolute.

Correct. Every theory of science remains a theory, even if we use them often enough to call them laws.

Leafsdude wrote:They're observations.

No, they are theories. In the case of the laws of thermodynamics, these are theories that have been formalized into mathematics.

Leafsdude wrote:So, if we observe something that violates the law, the law is what's wrong, not the observation.

That would change the mathematics of the law. What is the mechanism of change?

Leafsdude wrote:Hence, the observation that increased CO2 levels (and other greenhouse gases) results in an increase in temperature supersedes the law of thermodynamics if they conflict.

First, no such observation exists. It is not possible to measure global temperature.

Second, no such conflict exists.

Third, rising global temperature could be caused by only one thing, increased sun output.

Leafsdude wrote:And CO2 is an energy source. Just ask plants.

Plants do NOT use CO2 as an energy source. They use light. Carbon dioxide is broken down by this energy source so the plant can use the carbon and some of the oxygen. The excess oxygen is vented.

The only natural system that thermodynamic laws apply to, being the only one naturally closed to external energy sources, is the universe as a whole. Lab conditions that tightly control the input of energy are pretty much the only other place where thermodynamic laws are observed and applied, though only in a relatively lose manner. They also could potentially be used successfully on, for example, rogue planets, though energy input in such cases may still be too high for the laws to be observed within reasonable error.

This line of thinking is violation of Thevenin's Law.

Any subset of a closed system (such as the universe) is valid as long as all sources and sinks are accounted for in that set. Thus, the Sun-Earth-Space system is a valid set.

The laws of thermodynamics are not applied 'loosely'. They are applied at all times and in all places. They do not change. There is no statistics involved. There is no source of error.

ALL of it leaves. What goes in MUST come out. That's the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Well, yes, but not instantly. The real question is whether it leaves faster than it enters. The fact is it does not when greenhouse gases are high enough. Hence why the greenhouse effect happens.

Yes it does.

Nope. If you actually understand what the 2nd law is saying, you would know it doesn't.

It also is not an accurate representation of what happens when CO2 absorbs electromagnetic energy.

Why not?

An interesting claim. What is your mechanism for change?

What do you mean?

Oh, you mean...

That would change the mathematics of the law. What is the mechanism of change?

No, it would mean the mathematics of the law are incorrect and require correcting.

Asking for a mechanism of change is a nonsense question.

Correct. Every theory of science remains a theory, even if we use them often enough to call them laws.

No, they are theories. In the case of the laws of thermodynamics, these are theories that have been formalized into mathematics.

Uh. No.

I suggest you look up the definitions of the words theory and law as used scientifically. Theories do not become laws. Laws are parts of the body of work used to create theories. This is Creationist-level misunderstanding.

First, no such observation exists. It is not possible to measure global temperature.

Of course you can. It's been done.

The accuracy of course is not absolute, but no measurement is or ever will be. But a reasonably accurate measurement is possible and has been done.

Second, no such conflict exists.

Of course. I agree. I said as much.

You're the one saying there is a conflict...

Third, rising global temperature could be caused by only one thing, increased sun output.

Nope. If that was the case, then historical temperature readings would match Sun output exactly. Even if you were to claim that it's the only significant possible cause, the match between Sun output and temperature would be significant, but that's also not the case.

The fact is, though the Sun is absolutely the primary driver of climate on our planet, it's not the only significant one, and all evidence strongly supports CO2 and other greenhouse gases as the second largest driver of climate on our planet and a significant one that can radically alter it.

Plants do NOT use CO2 as an energy source. They use light. Carbon dioxide is broken down by this energy source so the plant can use the carbon and some of the oxygen. The excess oxygen is vented.

Use the carbon and some of the oxygen for, what...?

It's like saying they don't use water, they use some hydrogen and some oxygen. Well, yes, but neither statement is contradictory to the other. Both are true. One is just a little more descriptive than the other. Kind of like saying I'm a human and then you saying I'm wrong because I'm actually a bipedal, highly intelligent great ape.

Without light, the process doesn't work. The plant dies.

Same with CO2. Without it, the process of photosynthesis doesn't work and the plant dies. *shrug*
Edited on 21-07-2016 04:06

ALL of it leaves. What goes in MUST come out. That's the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Well, yes, but not instantly. The real question is whether it leaves faster than it enters. The fact is it does not when greenhouse gases are high enough. Hence why the greenhouse effect happens.

ANYTHING that causes a substance to become warmer increase the rate of energy loss. That is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Leafsdude wrote:

Yes it does.

Nope. If you actually understand what the 2nd law is saying, you would know it doesn't.

I do. Go look it up.

Leafsdude wrote:

It also is not an accurate representation of what happens when CO2 absorbs electromagnetic energy.

Why not?

The absorption of electromagnetic energy by carbon dioxide (or any other substance) is converted into thermal energy. Since carbon dioxide is 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere, this additional thermal energy is dissipated into the rest of the air. The very slightly warmer convects upward, just like always. Air is colder than the surface. It is incapable of heating the surface.

Leafsdude wrote:

An interesting claim. What is your mechanism for change?

What do you mean?

Oh, you mean...

That would change the mathematics of the law. What is the mechanism of change?

No, it would mean the mathematics of the law are incorrect and require correcting.

Asking for a mechanism of change is a nonsense question.

Making a claim with specifying mechanism of change is nonsense. If you are going to change or alter an existing theory, you must specify how that theory is altered and why. Since the laws of thermodynamics have been formalized into mathematics, the change must also be formalized into mathematics and incorporated into existing equations using proofs.

Leafsdude wrote:

Correct. Every theory of science remains a theory, even if we use them often enough to call them laws.

No, they are theories. In the case of the laws of thermodynamics, these are theories that have been formalized into mathematics.

Uh. No.

I suggest you look up the definitions of the words theory and law as used scientifically. Theories do not become laws. Laws are parts of the body of work used to create theories. This is Creationist-level misunderstanding.

?? I never said a theory 'graduates' into law.

Leafsdude wrote:

First, no such observation exists. It is not possible to measure global temperature.

Of course you can. It's been done.

The accuracy of course is not absolute, but no measurement is or ever will be. But a reasonably accurate measurement is possible and has been done.

We do not have sufficient instrumentation. It has not been done...ever.

If you understood statistics, you would understand the error produced by any form of averaging of existing thermometers produces an error far higher than the temperature being measured. You would also understand the fallacy of installing weights of elements to be averaged.

Leafsdude wrote:

Third, rising global temperature could be caused by only one thing, increased sun output.

Nope. If that was the case, then historical temperature readings would match Sun output exactly. Even if you were to claim that it's the only significant possible cause, the match between Sun output and temperature would be significant, but that's also not the case.

You have no way of knowing. We can't measure it.

Leafsdude wrote:The fact is, though the Sun is absolutely the primary driver of climate on our planet, it's not the only significant one, and all evidence strongly supports CO2 and other greenhouse gases as the second largest driver of climate on our planet and a significant one that can radically alter it.

CO2 has no power to do this. It is not a magick gas that provides energy or magically absorbs or reflects energy in only one direction.

Leafsdude wrote:

Plants do NOT use CO2 as an energy source. They use light. Carbon dioxide is broken down by this energy source so the plant can use the carbon and some of the oxygen. The excess oxygen is vented.

Use the carbon and some of the oxygen for, what...?

As material for their tissues...like bricks.

Leafsdude wrote:It's like saying they don't use water, they use some hydrogen and some oxygen.

False equivalence and the use of a straw man as a trivializing argument.

Leafsdude wrote:Well, yes, but neither statement is contradictory to the other. Both are true. One is just a little more descriptive than the other.

No, it is a series of fallacies all wrapped up in one sentence.

Leafsdude wrote:Kind of like saying I'm a human and then you saying I'm wrong because I'm actually a bipedal, highly intelligent great ape.

Same fallacies.

Leafsdude wrote:

Without light, the process doesn't work. The plant dies.

Same with CO2. Without it, the process of photosynthesis doesn't work and the plant dies. *shrug*

ANYTHING that causes a substance to become warmer increase the rate of energy loss. That is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Yes, but it doesn't necessarily keep the two in balance. When something increases in temperature, it doesn't always cool back to any baseline temperature instantly. Some can actually maintain increases in temperature without external input of energy for millions of year; for example, our planet's mantle core, which maintains energy via pressure as opposed to input from the Sun.

Same with our atmosphere. Even though increased temperature results in more energy loss, it doesn't mean the increased temperature can't be maintained for significant periods. If it did, there would be no day-to-day temperature fluctuations and every Milankovitch Cycle would maintain a constant temperature cycle. But, alas, here where I live, the last 4 days has seen temperatures of 22, 25, 26 and 24*C and the next 4 days are forecasted to be 31, 34, 33 and 30*C. That's because other factors other than Sun output drive temperatures, both short term and long term.

I do. Go look it up.

I have. I also understand what it says. You clearly do not.

Again, the first law of thermodynamics clearly states that all of the laws only apply to systems with no outside energy available to effect it, ie: a closed system (more accurately an isolated system, but most of the time it's simplified to closed system). Earth has outside energy available from the Sun, and the Sun and the Earth have outside energy from the rest of the universe, so thermodynamic laws do not apply to them. As such, the fact that the energy and temperature of our planet goes up does not violate said laws.

Now say I'm wrong because you say so. 'Cause I'm pretty sure that's all you can muster in response.

I never said a theory 'graduates' into law.

You said, quote:

"Theories [become] formalized into mathematics"

That's absolutely not true. It goes the other way around. Laws get formalized as a section in a greater theory that explains, in part, the laws in question as well as other observations and mechanisms. For example, the laws of thermodynamics are partially explained by (and also expanded within) quantum mechanics. Theories do not become mathematically explained. Instead, they explain how mathematical laws effect our universe.

We do not have sufficient instrumentation. It has not been done...ever.

We absolutely do. Among others, there are basic weather stations, satellites, weather balloons and ocean buoys. They're definitely sufficient, widespread and accurate enough to definitely give a reasonably accurate picture and dataset for the entire Earth, especially when all the different methods are combined.

If you understood statistics, you would understand the error produced by any form of averaging of existing thermometers produces an error far higher than the temperature being measured.

I'll assume you're saying the same as you have been so far, which is that scientific instruments are not accurate, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption, as I'm not totally sure that is what you mean.

Errors in sophisticated scientific thermometers are not significant. Hell, the error in the thermometers you buy from your local Wal-Mart isn't significant. Maybe a full degree celsius, if you get a cheap enough model. Of course, there are external factors (for example, shade) that can effect accuracy, but these can also be measured, corrected for and mostly eliminated to insignificant levels as well.

You clearly completely underestimate our ability to measure temperature, something that can be easily debunked directly on your own, without relying on any scientific sources.

You would also understand the fallacy of installing weights of elements to be averaged.

Installing weights of elements? What?

Please explain that to me. I admit I have not the slightest clue what you mean by that.

You have no way of knowing. We can't measure it.

Of course we can, on both ends. We have measured Sun output directly for the last 40 years, via Earth-based reading and also by orbital and near-Sun satellites. We can also infer Sun output historically both by observing ocean sediments and also by observing other stars of similar makeup at different times in their life-cycles.

I've explained how we measure temperatures above.

But even if you were right, then claiming that the only possible source of temperature increase for our planet is Sun output would be an argument from ignorance (as is, an argument with no knowledge/evidence to support it), just as claiming that CO2 can also effect temperature would be.

CO2 has no power to do this.

You can repeat such mantras as much as you want, the evidence to the contrary, not just experimentally and theoretically but also via direct observation, is overwhelming.

It is not a magick gas that provides energy or magically absorbs or reflects energy in only one direction.

It's not magic, it's basic physics. And who says it reflects energy in only one direction?

Again, I think you're caught in a completely faulty understanding where you think energy radiated out from CO2 and other greenhouse gases are a part of the sum total of all energy that heats the Earth. It's not. Most energy that reaches the Earth from the Sun does not give its energy into our atmosphere as heat. Most of it instead bounces off our planet due to the albedo of the surface of most of our planet (actually, most of the energy from the Sun is absorbed by vegetation, but of course the amount of heating that does to the planet is negligible and therefore not relevant to the statement) and escapes our atmosphere. In fact, just look at the moon as to what the Earth would look like if we had no greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. The fact is almost all of the energy used in our atmosphere to generate heat is kept within it by greenhouse gases.

Again, all of this is basic physics and something that has been hypothesized, tested and confirmed repeatedly for about the last 100-150 years.

As material for their tissues...like bricks.

Mmm, well, yes, partially, but it's as a part of photosynthesis. You know, the process that plants use to create sugars. As in energy.

False equivalence and the use of a straw man as a trivializing argument.

It's not a false equivalence fallacy. It's a completely sound argument. Saying that CO2 is not an energy source because carbon and oxygen is what's used for energy is just like saying H2O is not an energy source for plants because they use hydrogen and oxygen for energy. And I highly doubt anyone would ever say water is not a source of energy for plants.

And it's definitely not a strawman argument, as I never falsely restated your argument, I responded to and then expanded on it via reducto ad absurdum.

No, it is a series of fallacies all wrapped up in one sentence.

Mmm, nope, definitely not.

Same fallacies.

Do clearly don't even know what a strawman fallacy or false equivalence fallacy is. Seems like you just picked a couple of phrases from a list of fallacies and pasted them...

ANYTHING that causes a substance to become warmer increase the rate of energy loss. That is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Yes, but it doesn't necessarily keep the two in balance.

Yes, it does. It always tends to return to the same equilibrium as before, assuming the same energy input.

Leafsdude wrote:When something increases in temperature, it doesn't always cool back to any baseline temperature instantly.

It doesn't heat up instantly either. This is due to the thermal index.

Leafsdude wrote:Some can actually maintain increases in temperature without external input of energy for millions of year; for example, our planet's mantle core, which maintains energy via pressure as opposed to input from the Sun.

The core is a source of energy, generated from the nuclear reactions in the core. It is not sufficient to make a major difference in global temperatures since it's shielded by solid rock.

Leafsdude wrote:Same with our atmosphere.

Our atmosphere is not radioactive.

Leafsdude wrote:Even though increased temperature results in more energy loss, it doesn't mean the increased temperature can't be maintained for significant periods.

That's exactly what it means.

Leafsdude wrote:If it did, there would be no day-to-day temperature fluctuations

Fluctuations in one location is not the global average or the global median. They are different from the fluctuations in other areas.

This cycle changes the orbital dimensions. Apogee and perigee are different due to this cycle, it is theorized.

Leafsdude wrote:But, alas, here where I live, the last 4 days has seen temperatures of 22, 25, 26 and 24*C and the next 4 days are forecasted to be 31, 34, 33 and 30*C. That's because other factors other than Sun output drive temperatures, both short term and long term.

You are making a compositional error. Your location is not the global temperature.

Leafsdude wrote:

I do. Go look it up.

I have. I also understand what it says. You clearly do not.

By attempting to build perpetual motion machines of the 1st and 2nd kind, you clearly do not have any clue.

Leafsdude wrote:Again, the first law of thermodynamics clearly states that all of the laws only apply to systems with no outside energy available to effect it, ie: a closed system (more accurately an isolated system, but most of the time it's simplified to closed system). Earth has outside energy available from the Sun, and the Sun and the Earth have outside energy from the rest of the universe, so thermodynamic laws do not apply to them.

You are ignoring Thevenin's Theorem. The Sun-Earth-Space system is a valid system for thermodynamics.

Leafsdude wrote:As such, the fact that the energy and temperature of our planet goes up does not violate said laws.

Assuming a constant source of energy from the sun, it does.

Leafsdude wrote:Now say I'm wrong because you say so. 'Cause I'm pretty sure that's all you can muster in response.

Since you refuse to look it up, I happen to be your only source at the moment. Sucks to be so lazy as you.

Leafsdude wrote:

I never said a theory 'graduates' into law.

You said, quote:

"Theories [become] formalized into mathematics"

Formalizing into mathematics is not making a theory law. It is the translation of a theory into mathematical form. The theory remains a theory. Some people refer to it as a 'law' simply out of convention. No theory becomes a law.

Leafsdude wrote:That's absolutely not true.

Theories start for many reasons.They be be inspired by an observation, they may be inspired out of a mathematical proof, they may be inspired by staring at the wall.

Leafsdude wrote:It goes the other way around.

Wrong. Only a few theories are inspired out of a mathematical proof.

Leafsdude wrote:Laws get formalized as a section in a greater theory that explains, in part, the laws in question as well as other observations and mechanisms.

Mathematics is an artificially created closed system. It is a tool, nothing more. It does not effect our universe. It can help describe it though.

Leafsdude wrote:

We do not have sufficient instrumentation. It has not been done...ever.

We absolutely do. Among others, there are basic weather stations, satellites, weather balloons and ocean buoys. They're definitely sufficient, widespread and accurate enough to definitely give a reasonably accurate picture and dataset for the entire Earth, especially when all the different methods are combined.

As I've said before, the margin of error is too great. There is no meaningful average or median possible, even when combining all the instruments we have. There is also no synchronization of the dataset. You are starting already with bias in the dataset from that alone.

Leafsdude wrote:

If you understood statistics, you would understand the error produced by any form of averaging of existing thermometers produces an error far higher than the temperature being measured.

I'll assume you're saying the same as you have been so far, which is that scientific instruments are not accurate, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption, as I'm not totally sure that is what you mean.

Not what I am saying. I build instrumentation for a living. I know what these instruments can do.

Leafsdude wrote:Errors in sophisticated scientific thermometers are not significant. Hell, the error in the thermometers you buy from your local Wal-Mart isn't significant. Maybe a full degree celsius, if you get a cheap enough model. Of course, there are external factors (for example, shade) that can effect accuracy, but these can also be measured, corrected for and mostly eliminated to insignificant levels as well.

You clearly completely underestimate our ability to measure temperature, something that can be easily debunked directly on your own, without relying on any scientific sources.

Ignoring the extension of your irrelevant reply.

Leafsdude wrote:

You would also understand the fallacy of installing weights of elements to be averaged.

Installing weights of elements? What?

Please explain that to me. I admit I have not the slightest clue what you mean by that.

This is because you do not understand statistics. Go read some books on it.

Leafsdude wrote:

You have no way of knowing. We can't measure it.

Of course we can, on both ends. We have measured Sun output directly for the last 40 years, via Earth-based reading and also by orbital and near-Sun satellites. We can also infer Sun output historically both by observing ocean sediments and also by observing other stars of similar makeup at different times in their life-cycles.

We can measure to a point. We can't measure everything about the sun.

Leafsdude wrote:I've explained how we measure temperatures above.

Which is ignoring the margin of error generated by the averaging process using insufficient sampling, and that biased.

Leafsdude wrote:But even if you were right, then claiming that the only possible source of temperature increase for our planet is Sun output would be an argument from ignorance (as is, an argument with no knowledge/evidence to support it), just as claiming that CO2 can also effect temperature would be.

You are aware of another source of energy?

Leafsdude wrote:

CO2 has no power to do this.

You can repeat such mantras as much as you want, the evidence to the contrary, not just experimentally and theoretically but also via direct observation, is overwhelming.

No experiment has changed what we know about the properties of CO2. It simply does not have the properties you claim. We know a lot about CO2, too.

There is no falsifiable theory that would cause CO2 to raise the global temperature. All scientific theories must be falsifiable and testable for the null hypothesis using closed tests.

There is no direct observation possible. We have insufficient instrumentation for it.

Consensus does not exist in science. It is a political or religious term. There is no overwhelming anything.

Leafsdude wrote:

It is not a magick gas that provides energy or magically absorbs or reflects energy in only one direction.

Leafsdude wrote:And who says it reflects energy in only one direction?

You do.

Leafsdude wrote:Again, I think you're caught in a completely faulty understanding where you think energy radiated out from CO2 and other greenhouse gases are a part of the sum total of all energy that heats the Earth. It's not.

I agree. It's not. I never said it did.

Leafsdude wrote:Most energy that reaches the Earth from the Sun does not give its energy into our atmosphere as heat.

True.

Leafsdude wrote:Most of it instead bounces off our planet due to the albedo of the surface of most of our planet (actually, most of the energy from the Sun is absorbed by vegetation, but of course the amount of heating that does to the planet is negligible and therefore not relevant to the statement) and escapes our atmosphere.

We don't even know what the albedo of the Earth is. There is no way to measure it or calculate it. Absorption also occurs on many different frequency bands.

Leafsdude wrote:In fact, just look at the moon as to what the Earth would look like if we had no greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

Yeah. You should do that. Other than the effects of atmospheric pressure, the average temperature of the moon and the average temperature of the Earth are the same. The same is true with any object in space near the Earth-Moon system.

Leafsdude wrote:The fact is almost all of the energy used in our atmosphere to generate heat is kept within it by greenhouse gases.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. All gases of the atmosphere conduct and convect heat in almost exactly the same way. There is nothing remarkable about carbon dioxide in this regard.

Leafsdude wrote:Again, all of this is basic physics and something that has been hypothesized, tested and confirmed repeatedly for about the last 100-150 years.

No such experiments. None of this type are possible to conduct. Science has no proofs. You cannot use an experiment to confirm anything.

Leafsdude wrote:

As material for their tissues...like bricks.

Mmm, well, yes, partially, but it's as a part of photosynthesis. You know, the process that plants use to create sugars. As in energy.

That energy comes from the light the plant is exposed to, not the materials to make the sugars and other substances for the plant.

Leafsdude wrote:

False equivalence and the use of a straw man as a trivializing argument.

It's not a false equivalence fallacy. It's a completely sound argument. Saying that CO2 is not an energy source because carbon and oxygen is what's used for energy is just like saying H2O is not an energy source for plants because they use hydrogen and oxygen for energy. And I highly doubt anyone would ever say water is not a source of energy for plants.

Read up on the photosynthesis process. You will find quite a few people say exactly this.

Leafsdude wrote:And it's definitely not a strawman argument, as I never falsely restated your argument, I responded to and then expanded on it via reducto ad absurdum.

Through the use of a strawman and trivialization. At least you admit to this fallacy.

Leafsdude wrote:

No, it is a series of fallacies all wrapped up in one sentence.

Mmm, nope, definitely not.

Yup. Your entire argument is riddled with various fallacies, that particular sentence used several of them.

Leafsdude wrote:

Same fallacies.

Do clearly don't even know what a strawman fallacy or false equivalence fallacy is. Seems like you just picked a couple of phrases from a list of fallacies and pasted them...

I know what they are and how they apply back to formal logic.

Leafsdude wrote:

You are confusing the brick with the guy laying it.

What does that even mean?

You are confusing light with the materials the plant uses to store energy from that light, and to construct bits of itself.

"Yes, it does. It always tends to return to the same equilibrium as before, assuming the same energy input.

Yes, but it's possible for that to take long periods of time to achieve.

And, again, the energy input can remain constant, but if the energy output decreases, the temperature can still increase without violating the 2nd law. This is what's happening on our planet.

It doesn't heat up instantly either. This is due to the thermal index.

Of course not. It's taken about 100 years to increase even 1*C. It's estimated to take another 100 years and an exponential rising of the primary effect causing the increase (CO2) to cause 2-4*C more of warming.

The core is a source of energy, generated from the nuclear reactions in the core. It is not sufficient to make a major difference in global temperatures since it's shielded by solid rock.

While, yes, radioactivity also provides some energy to the core (just how much is uncertain), pressure is also a very significant cause of heat generation for our planet's core.

Our atmosphere is not radioactive.

Well, duh...

That's exactly what it means.

Based on what, exactly?

Fluctuations in one location is not the global average or the global median. They are different from the fluctuations in other areas.

I'm not saying otherwise.

This cycle changes the orbital dimensions. Apogee and perigee are different due to this cycle, it is theorized.

Your point being...?

You are making a compositional error. Your location is not the global temperature.

Once again, I'm not saying it is. You're completely missing the point.

The point is, there are effects on our planet that affects weather beyond the Sun. Since climate is weather on a larger scale, it stands to reason that if there's effects on weather beyond the Sun, there's effects on climate beyond the Sun. Scientific research has proven this reasoning to be reasonably correct.

By attempting to build perpetual motion machines of the 1st and 2nd kind, you clearly do not have any clue.

No perpetual motion machine. Just basic physics.

You are ignoring Thevenin's Theorem. The Sun-Earth-Space system is a valid system for thermodynamics.

Assuming a constant source of energy from the sun, it does.

Sure. I said as much, since the Sun + Earth + Space = the universe.

The Sun and Earth do not equal a valid closed/isolated system to allow for accurate use for thermodynamics.

But regardless, this doesn't matter, as even if you view the Sun and Earth as a closed/isolated system, that doesn't mean that temperature cannot change on the Earth without increased output from the Sun unless you erroneously assume near 100% of the Sun's energy to the Earth is absorbed and used or a constant release of energy.

Since you refuse to look it up, I happen to be your only source at the moment. Sucks to be so lazy as you.

It's cute that you think I don't look things up.

Formalizing into mathematics is not making a theory law. It is the translation of a theory into mathematical form. The theory remains a theory. Some people refer to it as a 'law' simply out of convention. No theory becomes a law.

No theory is simplistic enough to be translated into mathematical form. Theories are way too complex and contain way too much information for such a possibility. Theories contain mathematical concepts, most of which are only applicable in very precise conditions. Those are called scientific laws.

Theories start for many reasons.They be be inspired by an observation, they may be inspired out of a mathematical proof, they may be inspired by staring at the wall.

Sure, but they don't graduate to theories from any of those. They graduate from a collection of repeatedly successful experiments that eventually result in only one possible concordant explanation.

When the mechanism of change is shown, a theory may be modified.

So "mechanism of change" = experiment with results that provide new information for accepted theories?

They do all the time.Consider F=mA.

F=ma is not a theory. The theory of relativity is a theory, which, along with F=ma, includes multiple laws, but is much more than just laws. F=ma is definitely not an explanation of the theory of relativity, what with the fact that it doesn't hold to be true in special relativity (the law in special relativity is related as F=dp/dt).

Mathematics is an artificially created closed system. It is a tool, nothing more. It does not effect our universe. It can help describe it though.

Mathematics is not an energy system, therefore describing it as a "closed system" is nonsensical.

And yet you accuse me of not understanding what these words mean?

But regardless of whether the above is true, which, if you used a phrase other than closed system, it very well could be, it's all completely irrelevant to my point.

As I've said before, the margin of error is too great. There is no meaningful average or median possible, even when combining all the instruments we have.

There is also no synchronization of the dataset. You are starting already with bias in the dataset from that alone.

Define "synchronization".

Not what I am saying. I build instrumentation for a living. I know what these instruments can do.

The fact that you build them hardly gives you qualification in knowing what they can do. I can build Ikea furniture, for example, but that doesn't give me any qualification to estimate how much weight that furniture can hold.

This is because you do not understand statistics. Go read some books on it.

Would rather not waste my time when I have someone as qualified as you to explain it to me.

We can measure to a point. We can't measure everything about the sun.

We can't measure everything about anything. It doesn't mean we don't have an accurate representation of it.

Which is ignoring the margin of error generated by the averaging process using insufficient sampling, and that biased.

Nope. Margins of error are always included in temperature estimates and are always significantly lower than the actual estimated temperatures.

And what basis do you use to claim that temperature readings do not contain a sufficient sample?

You are aware of another source of energy?

Gamma ray radiation from distant stars, for one. Not significant, I'll grant you, but it's still enough to make thermodynamic law calculations significantly inaccurate.

Regardless, though, even if we do assume absolutely no other energy but the Sun, the increase of temperature on the Earth based on other methods outside of increased Sun energy input is still allowed under thermodynamics unless you assume either near 100% absorption of that energy or a constant release of energy.

No experiment has changed what we know about the properties of CO2.

Wait, what? All knowledge we have about CO2 was gained from experimentation. All knowledge of any chemical compounds or elements we've gained from experimentation. That's how we gain knowledge.

More specifically, an experiment in 1864 by John Tyndall showed that CO2 absorbed infrared radiation. That is when our knowledge of the properties of CO2 changed, well over 100 years ago, and well before even the first greenhouse and climate theories were developed.

It simply does not have the properties you claim.

I don't make the claim, scientists do, and you can find the properties I've stated in any textbook or from any basic scientific experiment.

We know a lot about CO2, too.

We probably know more about CO2 than just about any other chemical compound, I'd wager. Perhaps water would be the only exception.

There is no falsifiable theory that would cause CO2 to raise the global temperature. All scientific theories must be falsifiable and testable for the null hypothesis using closed tests.

Of course there is. If you add CO2 to a controlled environment and temperatures do not increase, then the theory is falsified. As well, if you see an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and don't see an increase in temperature even while there's no mitigating factors that would explain a constant temperature, it would also be falsified.

I encourage you to find me an example of such an experiment of either not causing temperature increase. If you can find a reputable one, I will cede that you are correct and CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

Good luck!

There is no direct observation possible. We have insufficient instrumentation for it.

Your assertions don't make it fact.

Consensus does not exist in science. It is a political or religious term. There is no overwhelming anything.

Of course it does. Consensus is the key principle in the acceptance of a gathering of hypotheses into a theory. The word "concordance" is often used instead, but the meaning is the same.

Now, if you're talking about consensus by scientists, you're correct. But unless you subscribe to the idea that the 97% consensus stated multiple times is from a poll of scientists, which anyone with any ability to skeptically assess claims, especially ones from media sources, should know is a complete misrepresentation of the datapoint, you should know that none of the climate change consensus is based on the belief of scientists. In reality, the 97% consensus is from a meta-analysis of scientific papers making implicit or explicit statements for or against human-caused climate change. If it's changed to explicit statements only, it drops to around 94% consensus in the scientific literature (meaning not just from stated opinions of scientists).

Never said you did say it. I simply am inferring such a thought from your claims.

If you agree, though, that not all energy from the Sun that reaches the Earth heats it, then the concept where additional energy from the Sun is trapped on Earth would at least be theoretically possible, as in it doesn't violate any known laws. Do you agree with that? I can't see how you can, considering your strict adherence to the idea that such a statement violates thermodynamic law, even though it clearly doesn't, since it's not adding any energy into the system, it's just keeping energy from leaving that would otherwise leave.

We don't even know what the albedo of the Earth is.

Of course we do. It's estimated at a range of 0.1 to 0.4 with an overall average around 0.3 (1 is perfect reflection of all light).

There is no way to measure it or calculate it.

Unless you think 99+% accuracy is required to measure or calculate something, there definitely is.

Absorption also occurs on many different frequency bands.

Agreed.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. All gases of the atmosphere conduct and convect heat in almost exactly the same way.

Mmm, nope. Some gases radiate at different frequencies. Some don't radiate at any frequency while some radiate more than others. CO2, methane, H2O and O3, among others, are the most efficient radiators of heat from frequencies of wavebands after energy is reflected off the Earth's surface. This is the basic concept of greenhouse gases and has been not only proven beyond a reasonable doubt but accepted for over 100 years.

There is nothing remarkable about carbon dioxide in this regard.

It's definitely not remarkable. Just basic physics.

No such experiments. None of this type are possible to conduct.

Of course they are. They're conducted in classrooms, labs and homes all the time. They're among the most simple and safe experiments we conduct in science. All you need is some CO2, some bottles, a lamp and some time. There are videos online of such experiments all over youtube. I've already linked you to one.

Science has no proofs. You cannot use an experiment to confirm anything.

Only if you need 100% certainty to state confirmation.

Is that what you believe?

That energy comes from the light the plant is exposed to, not the materials to make the sugars and other substances for the plant.

Nope. It comes from both. Not everything is an either-or situation. You can get energy from two different sources.

Read up on the photosynthesis process. You will find quite a few people say exactly this.

I can find quite a few people who say many things, including incredibly stupid ones. The fact is, the science says that photosynthesis gains energy from both heat from light and from CO2 being added to H2O and converted into sugars.

Through the use of a strawman and trivialization. At least you admit to this fallacy.

Hardly.

Do you even know what a strawman is?

And trivialization isn't a fallacy.

Yup. Your entire argument is riddled with various fallacies, that particular sentence used several of them.

Feel free to point them out and explain exactly what makes them fallacious.

I know what they are and how they apply back to formal logic.

I'm skeptical of this claim.

You are confusing light with the materials the plant uses to store energy from that light, and to construct bits of itself.

"Yes, it does. It always tends to return to the same equilibrium as before, assuming the same energy input.

Yes, but it's possible for that to take long periods of time to achieve.

And, again, the energy input can remain constant, but if the energy output decreases, the temperature can still increase without violating the 2nd law. This is what's happening on our planet.

It doesn't heat up instantly either. This is due to the thermal index.

Of course not. It's taken about 100 years to increase even 1*C. It's estimated to take another 100 years and an exponential rising of the primary effect causing the increase (CO2) to cause 2-4*C more of warming.

The core is a source of energy, generated from the nuclear reactions in the core. It is not sufficient to make a major difference in global temperatures since it's shielded by solid rock.

While, yes, radioactivity also provides some energy to the core (just how much is uncertain), pressure is also a very significant cause of heat generation for our planet's core.

Our atmosphere is not radioactive.

Well, duh...

That's exactly what it means.

Based on what, exactly?

Fluctuations in one location is not the global average or the global median. They are different from the fluctuations in other areas.

I'm not saying otherwise.

This cycle changes the orbital dimensions. Apogee and perigee are different due to this cycle, it is theorized.

Your point being...?

You are making a compositional error. Your location is not the global temperature.

Once again, I'm not saying it is. You're completely missing the point.

The point is, there are effects on our planet that affects weather beyond the Sun. Since climate is weather on a larger scale, it stands to reason that if there's effects on weather beyond the Sun, there's effects on climate beyond the Sun. Scientific research has proven this reasoning to be reasonably correct.

By attempting to build perpetual motion machines of the 1st and 2nd kind, you clearly do not have any clue.

No perpetual motion machine. Just basic physics.

You are ignoring Thevenin's Theorem. The Sun-Earth-Space system is a valid system for thermodynamics.

Assuming a constant source of energy from the sun, it does.

Sure. I said as much, since the Sun + Earth + Space = the universe.

The Sun and Earth do not equal a valid closed/isolated system to allow for accurate use for thermodynamics.

But regardless, this doesn't matter, as even if you view the Sun and Earth as a closed/isolated system, that doesn't mean that temperature cannot change on the Earth without increased output from the Sun unless you erroneously assume near 100% of the Sun's energy to the Earth is absorbed and used or a constant release of energy.

Since you refuse to look it up, I happen to be your only source at the moment. Sucks to be so lazy as you.

It's cute that you think I don't look things up.

Formalizing into mathematics is not making a theory law. It is the translation of a theory into mathematical form. The theory remains a theory. Some people refer to it as a 'law' simply out of convention. No theory becomes a law.

No theory is simplistic enough to be translated into mathematical form. Theories are way too complex and contain way too much information for such a possibility. Theories contain mathematical concepts, most of which are only applicable in very precise conditions. Those are called scientific laws.

Theories start for many reasons.They be be inspired by an observation, they may be inspired out of a mathematical proof, they may be inspired by staring at the wall.

Sure, but they don't graduate to theories from any of those. They graduate from a collection of repeatedly successful experiments that eventually result in only one possible concordant explanation.

When the mechanism of change is shown, a theory may be modified.

So "mechanism of change" = experiment with results that provide new information for accepted theories?

They do all the time.Consider F=mA.

F=ma is not a theory. The theory of relativity is a theory, which, along with F=ma, includes multiple laws, but is much more than just laws. F=ma is definitely not an explanation of the theory of relativity, what with the fact that it doesn't hold to be true in special relativity (the law in special relativity is related as F=dp/dt).

Mathematics is an artificially created closed system. It is a tool, nothing more. It does not effect our universe. It can help describe it though.

Mathematics is not an energy system, therefore describing it as a "closed system" is nonsensical.

And yet you accuse me of not understanding what these words mean?

But regardless of whether the above is true, which, if you used a phrase other than closed system, it very well could be, it's all completely irrelevant to my point.

As I've said before, the margin of error is too great. There is no meaningful average or median possible, even when combining all the instruments we have.

There is also no synchronization of the dataset. You are starting already with bias in the dataset from that alone.

Define "synchronization".

Not what I am saying. I build instrumentation for a living. I know what these instruments can do.

The fact that you build them hardly gives you qualification in knowing what they can do. I can build Ikea furniture, for example, but that doesn't give me any qualification to estimate how much weight that furniture can hold.

This is because you do not understand statistics. Go read some books on it.

Would rather not waste my time when I have someone as qualified as you to explain it to me.

We can measure to a point. We can't measure everything about the sun.

We can't measure everything about anything. It doesn't mean we don't have an accurate representation of it.

Which is ignoring the margin of error generated by the averaging process using insufficient sampling, and that biased.

Nope. Margins of error are always included in temperature estimates and are always significantly lower than the actual estimated temperatures.

And what basis do you use to claim that temperature readings do not contain a sufficient sample?

You are aware of another source of energy?

Gamma ray radiation from distant stars, for one. Not significant, I'll grant you, but it's still enough to make thermodynamic law calculations significantly inaccurate.

Regardless, though, even if we do assume absolutely no other energy but the Sun, the increase of temperature on the Earth based on other methods outside of increased Sun energy input is still allowed under thermodynamics unless you assume either near 100% absorption of that energy or a constant release of energy.

No experiment has changed what we know about the properties of CO2.

Wait, what? All knowledge we have about CO2 was gained from experimentation. All knowledge of any chemical compounds or elements we've gained from experimentation. That's how we gain knowledge.

More specifically, an experiment in 1864 by John Tyndall showed that CO2 absorbed infrared radiation. That is when our knowledge of the properties of CO2 changed, well over 100 years ago, and well before even the first greenhouse and climate theories were developed.

It simply does not have the properties you claim.

I don't make the claim, scientists do, and you can find the properties I've stated in any textbook or from any basic scientific experiment.

We know a lot about CO2, too.

We probably know more about CO2 than just about any other chemical compound, I'd wager. Perhaps water would be the only exception.

There is no falsifiable theory that would cause CO2 to raise the global temperature. All scientific theories must be falsifiable and testable for the null hypothesis using closed tests.

Of course there is. If you add CO2 to a controlled environment and temperatures do not increase, then the theory is falsified. As well, if you see an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and don't see an increase in temperature even while there's no mitigating factors that would explain a constant temperature, it would also be falsified.

I encourage you to find me an example of such an experiment of either not causing temperature increase. If you can find a reputable one, I will cede that you are correct and CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

Good luck!

There is no direct observation possible. We have insufficient instrumentation for it.

Your assertions don't make it fact.

Consensus does not exist in science. It is a political or religious term. There is no overwhelming anything.

Of course it does. Consensus is the key principle in the acceptance of a gathering of hypotheses into a theory. The word "concordance" is often used instead, but the meaning is the same.

Now, if you're talking about consensus by scientists, you're correct. But unless you subscribe to the idea that the 97% consensus stated multiple times is from a poll of scientists, which anyone with any ability to skeptically assess claims, especially ones from media sources, should know is a complete misrepresentation of the datapoint, you should know that none of the climate change consensus is based on the belief of scientists. In reality, the 97% consensus is from a meta-analysis of scientific papers making implicit or explicit statements for or against human-caused climate change. If it's changed to explicit statements only, it drops to around 94% consensus in the scientific literature (meaning not just from stated opinions of scientists).

Never said you did say it. I simply am inferring such a thought from your claims.

If you agree, though, that not all energy from the Sun that reaches the Earth heats it, then the concept where additional energy from the Sun is trapped on Earth would at least be theoretically possible, as in it doesn't violate any known laws. Do you agree with that? I can't see how you can, considering your strict adherence to the idea that such a statement violates thermodynamic law, even though it clearly doesn't, since it's not adding any energy into the system, it's just keeping energy from leaving that would otherwise leave.

We don't even know what the albedo of the Earth is.

Of course we do. It's estimated at a range of 0.1 to 0.4 with an overall average around 0.3 (1 is perfect reflection of all light).

There is no way to measure it or calculate it.

Unless you think 99+% accuracy is required to measure or calculate something, there definitely is.

Absorption also occurs on many different frequency bands.

Agreed.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. All gases of the atmosphere conduct and convect heat in almost exactly the same way.

Mmm, nope. Some gases radiate at different frequencies. Some don't radiate at any frequency while some radiate more than others. CO2, methane, H2O and O3, among others, are the most efficient radiators of heat from frequencies of wavebands after energy is reflected off the Earth's surface. This is the basic concept of greenhouse gases and has been not only proven beyond a reasonable doubt but accepted for over 100 years.

There is nothing remarkable about carbon dioxide in this regard.

It's definitely not remarkable. Just basic physics.

No such experiments. None of this type are possible to conduct.

Of course they are. They're conducted in classrooms, labs and homes all the time. They're among the most simple and safe experiments we conduct in science. All you need is some CO2, some bottles, a lamp and some time. There are videos online of such experiments all over youtube. I've already linked you to one.

Science has no proofs. You cannot use an experiment to confirm anything.

Only if you need 100% certainty to state confirmation.

Is that what you believe?

That energy comes from the light the plant is exposed to, not the materials to make the sugars and other substances for the plant.

Nope. It comes from both. Not everything is an either-or situation. You can get energy from two different sources.

Read up on the photosynthesis process. You will find quite a few people say exactly this.

I can find quite a few people who say many things, including incredibly stupid ones. The fact is, the science says that photosynthesis gains energy from both heat from light and from CO2 being added to H2O and converted into sugars.

Through the use of a strawman and trivialization. At least you admit to this fallacy.

Hardly.

Do you even know what a strawman is?

And trivialization isn't a fallacy.

Yup. Your entire argument is riddled with various fallacies, that particular sentence used several of them.

Feel free to point them out and explain exactly what makes them fallacious.

I know what they are and how they apply back to formal logic.

I'm skeptical of this claim.

You are confusing light with the materials the plant uses to store energy from that light, and to construct bits of itself.

How, exactly, am I doing that?

All of this adds up to one kind of fallacy. The argument of the Stone.

All of this has been explained to you already.

The Parrot Killer

05-08-2016 12:54

Gordon

☆☆☆☆☆(1)

Until we know 2016 is the hottest

The denier mantra will be "No warming since 2015, where's your global warming"

1) Vacuums don't exist in reality, nor is the Earth a vacuum, so what is the relevance to such a question?

2) An important question you forgot to answer is how long it will take for equilibrium to be reestablished. Of course both will remain the same when it does, but it could take anywhere from a few moments to billions of years to get there.